Free Speech and Government Property, Episode 8 of My "Free Speech Rules" YouTube Video Series

Thanks to a generous grant from the Stanton Foundation, and to the video production work of Meredith Bragg and Austin Bragg at Reason.tv, I'm putting together a series of 10 short, graphical YouTube videos explaining free speech law. Our videos so far have been

1. "7 Things You Should Know About Free Speech in Schools,"
2. "The Three Rules of Hate Speech and the First Amendment,"
3. "Fake News and the First Amendment,"
4. "Who Owns Your Life Story?,"
5. "Is Money Speech?,"
6. "Corporations and the First Amendment," and
7. "The Ten Rules of Free Speech and College Students":

Our eighth, which we just released, is "The First Amendment and Government Property":

As usual for our episodes, the full script is also posted right below the video on YouTube.

We'd love it if you

1. Watched this.
2. Shared this widely.
3. Suggested people or organizations whom we might be willing to help spread it far and wide (obviously, the more detail on the potential contacts, the better).
4. Gave us feedback on the style of the presentation, since we're always willing to change the style as we learn more.

Please post your suggestions in the comments, or e-mail me at volokh at law.ucla.edu.

Future videos in the series will likely include most of the following, plus maybe some others:

• Speech and privacy.
• Alexander Hamilton: free press pioneer.

Comments

[Absaroka]

1)I like it. And 'Ewoks suck'.

2)At the risk of digression, the Holmes quote "The United States may give up the Post Office when it sees fit, but while it carries it on the use of the mails is almost as much a part of free speech as the right to use our tongues" made me wonder about the Defense Distributed case.

If the government can't restrict sending some given content through the mail, then surely it has even less ability to censor the not-government-owned internet?? My sense is that the government has never asserted that you can't publish a book with blueprints for weapons, or send such blueprints through the mail. AFAIK, the government also doesn't assert a general ability to censor CAD/CAM files for ITAR restricted items, like for example flashlights, however transmitted.

Why doesn't Holmes' statement not make Defense Distributed a simple 1A case?